onepiecefandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Mass Edit war with SeaTerror
Okay in case anyone's noticed, I've put a massive 1 month long protection on Gill Bastar, Bran, Sino Phoenix, Gukou, Wild Joe, Yoshio, Koushin, Henna Oyaji, and the Category:Non-Canon. Why because SeaTerror's been edit warring over these pages on whether they are canon or not canon. It started at Henna Oyaji as shown by its history and its talk page. It spilled over and now SeaTerror's now edit warring with anyone who doesn't agree with his interpretation of what Non-Canon means in an One Piece Encyclopedia.Mugiwara Franky 15:24, October 25, 2010 (UTC) I already stated that there should be an Non-Canon to One Piece template since putting the Non-Canon template on those characters is a flat out lie because they are still canon to their original source. SeaTerror 18:19, October 25, 2010 (UTC) Okay, this Wikia is about One Piece. Gill Bastar, Bran, Sino Phoenix, Gukou, Wild Joe, Yoshio, Koushin and Henna Oyaji are part of Wanted!, which is not part of One Piece. Anything not with One Piece is non-canon! Yatanogarasu 18:30, October 25, 2010 (UTC) Actually since they are canon to their original source they are canon. If there has to be a template for non canon then it should be called Non-Canon to One Piece. SeaTerror 18:40, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :All these characters are tagged with Category:One-Shot_Characters so there is no reason to change the Non-Canon template or add a new one. I've also noticed that you have behavior problems SeaTerror and this was the cause for many of your conflicts with other editors! PLEASE take some deep breaths and RELAX. You shouldn't get in a fight with every-single-person that does not think EXACTLY like you do and avoiding to admit your mistakes is another thing too! :We make mistakes, EVERYONE, it's unavoidable but that does not prevent us from learning from them and try not to repeat them. The way you're acting implies that you intentionally look for trouble and you get in fights with other editors for the same reason, I can't make sense of this and I don't know how to explain it myself... MasterDeva 19:05, October 25, 2010 (UTC) They don't connect to the story of One Piece whats so ever. Only Monsters shares any storyline with One Piece at all. They are not filler however, they are just "other works" and properly need their own category since they are not connected to One Piece. One-Winged Hawk 18:56, October 25, 2010 (UTC) The main point is, we are talking about being canon to One Piece, not "canon to their original source". Therefore, they are all non-canon. Yatanogarasu 18:58, October 25, 2010 (UTC) Actually there is a reason to change it. Since it says Non-Canon it is stating they are not canon at all which would be a lie. Adding the template I proposed would easily solve that. All you would have to do is remove the original Non-Canon template and put the new one in. Also as I said on my talk page I'm going to be gone for 2 weeks so this will most likely be my last message until I get back. SeaTerror 05:18, October 26, 2010 (UTC) :There is actually a problem with creating another category called Non-Canon to One Piece. When people see it, without reading the instructions that it refers to other works, they will put it on anime and filler pages because Non-Canon to One Piece can be interpreted just the same as Non-Canon. I mean "Non-Canon to One Piece" can really mean anything from other series to anime characters. :To solve that, we would have to think of a way to go around that so people won't get confused. That and the whole Non-Canon subcategories would have to be renamed if not reworked to fit such a change. :Keeping the Non-Canon category simply as is as it is understandable that it means Non-Canon to One Piece. Besides based on most of the responses on the matter, most people really do see that the Non-Canon category as such. So far nobody else seems to have voiced that they interpret the category as meaning Non-Canon to its original source.Mugiwara Franky 06:57, October 26, 2010 (UTC) Except for the fact that it flat out says non-canon on those articles which would be a lie since they are canon to their original works. SeaTerror 20:26, November 13, 2010 (UTC)